Thomas Becon’s views on the Eucharist are characteristic of the more extreme of the English Reformers (Stone, 1909: II, 235).  His general theme in relation to the Eucharist was the rejection of the sacrifice of the Mass and a view which saw no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, either in an immoderate or moderate way.  For Becon the Eucharist was merely a symbol of Christ.  He can be classified as an immoderate nominalist since he argues for a complete separation of the particulars of the Eucharist, that is, the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.  Realism appears to have no part in his theology of the Eucharist.

Becon states that a sacrament is “the outward sign, and the promise of grace added to the sign” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 199).  A sacrament is seen to be:

“ … an holy action and exercise of Christ’s church, in the which the redemption and partaking of our Lord Jesus Christ is given to us through the word and the signs instituted for this purpose of God.  Or thus: A sacrament is an outward sign or visible token, comprehending in it a gracious, comfortable, and healthy promise of God.  Or on this wise: A sacrament is properly an outward sign, wherein God representeth and witnesses his goodwill towards us, to sustain the weakness of our faith.  Or another way, more short and more plain: A sacrament is a witness of God’s favour, declared by an outward sign.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 199)

There seems to be no sense of a sacramental real presence of Christ’s body and blood in Becon’s view of the sacraments.  Sacraments seem to be signs only which focus the attention of the faithful on the promises of God.  Becon expresses a nominalist view in his approach to the sacraments.  Becon’s view seems to be accepted by some modern Evangelicals who also present an immoderate nominalist theology of the Eucharist.  This is particularly true of Robert Doyle (see case study 4.27) who argues that the faithful only participate in Christ in a real and substantial way by faith.  Christ, he argues, does not offer himself either sacramentally or as a sacrament, but directly in his promises (Doyle, 1996: 14).  Doyle’s view seem to have much in common with those of Becon.

In regard to the Eucharist therefore Becon says:

“ … the supper of the Lord hath his signs, that it to say, bread and wine.  It hath all promises annexed to these signs, which are these: ‘which shall be betrayed for you’, ‘which shall be shed for you’”. (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 199)

The Eucharist, with it signs, therefore serves the purposes of focusing the communicant on the promises found in the word of God.  The Eucharist therefore:

“ … doth put us in remembrance of the grace, mercy, and favour of God, and of the free remission of all our sins, and testify unto us that all the benefits of the passion and death of Christ appertain unto us, and that we, in the worthy receiving of the Lord’s supper, are made partakers of them all, if we believe that Christ’s body was broken and his blood shed for our sins.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 199-200).

The sacraments are for the faithful therefore “memorials, to put us in remembrance” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 200) of the promises of God which are not given or received by the sacraments.  The communicant receives the Lord’s supper and partakes of the promises, not the body and blood of Christ.  Becon is careful to exclude any realist presence and receiving of Christ’s body and blood.  He says:

“ … in receiving the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ we receive not only the sacrament, but also Christ himself, with all his fruits, benefits, and merits of his glorious passion and healthful death.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 201).

It is the sacrament (the signs of bread and wine) and the promises (fruits, benefits and merits of the passion and death of Christ) which are received, not the body and blood of Christ.  A sacrament is seen to be a “visible word” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 201).  What “the word is to the ear, the very same thing is the sacrament to the eye” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 201).  The bread broken and the wine shed have the function of preaching to the eye but these elements are not seen as the means or vehicles of grace.

Becon seems to follow Cranmer in arguing that the Eucharist is

“an holy and heavenly banquet, in which the faithful Christians, besides the corporal eating of the bread, and the outward drinking of the wine, do spiritually through faith both eat the body and blood of Christ and drink his blood, …” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 228).

The bread and wine are consumed on earth, but the eating of the body of Christ and the drinking of the blood of Christ are in heaven.  It is by faith that this eating and drinking occurs.  The bread and wine and the body and blood are therefore seen to be separate and self-enclosed entities in a nominalist analysis.

Becon’s discussion of transubstantiation reveals that he sees the doctrine as immoderate realism.  Becon says that according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, what Christ handed to his disciples at the Last Supper was “Christ’s natural body … as it was born of Mary the virgin, and hanged on the cross.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 263).  Further he says:

“For if the substance of the bread and wine be turned into the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ, then must this doctrine also be true, that Christ is in the sacrament really, naturally, substantially, corporally, &c.; yea, that the sacrament is the true, real, natural, corporal, and substantial body of Christ.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 270)

Clearly Becon’s understanding of transubstantiation as presented by Aquinas is deficient.  Becon’s assertion that the doctrine of transubstantiation taught that the ‘natural body and blood of Christ’ was present in the sacrament in an immoderate way, is wrong.  Aquinas rejects such carnal or immoderate notions of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, saying:

“It is evident that Christ’s body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion, ... because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven.”  (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 75.2, edn. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1981: 2441).

“Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, … but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament.”  (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 75.1, edn. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1981: 2441)

Aquinas’ use of the doctrine of transubstantiation operated at a metaphysical level, which excluded any immoderate notions of a carnal or fleshy presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Christ was present on the altar, not in a material, physical or carnal manner but in a sacramental and spiritual manner, which required a change of substance.  The material qualities and chemical properties of the bread and wine did not change, but the substance or the inner reality did, being transubstantiated.  Becon, like Cranmer, did not operate on a metaphysical plane but an empirical one.  For them the substance of Christ’s body and blood could only be in heaven and on earth there could only be bread and wine.  He says:

“ … Christ dwelled corporally in heaven.  Heaven is his resting-place concerning his body, and shall be until he come in judgment.  Christ’s body then is not in every pix, and in every altar, and in every massmonger’s hands, as the papists hold? … As touching his bodily presence, Christ is in heaven, yea, in heaven only.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 271-272).

Becon’s attribution of an immoderate realism to the doctrine of transubstantiation could only apply to the corruptions of transubstantiation that occurred in the Middle Ages (see examples of these in Rubin, 1997), but not to the view advocated by Aquinas and other moderate realists.  Becon responds to the corruptions rather than the philosophical basis of the doctrine of realism.  The depth of his error is confirmed by the way he distinguishes between the corporal and spiritual presence of Christ.  In relation to the Scriptures which affirm that Christ is present when two or three are gathered together in his name (Matthew 18) and Christ’s assurance that he will be with his followers until the end of the world (Matthew 28), Becon explains that these words:

“ … are to be understanded not of Christ’s corporal, but of his spiritual presence.  For Christ, in that he is man, abideth only in heaven; but in that he is God, he is everywhere, at all times present with his church by his almighty power and heavenly Spirit.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 272).

Becon’s discussion of the spiritual presence differs little from that of Aquinas in some aspects.  What differs is the philosophical basis on which the spiritual presence is encountered.  Whereas Aquinas speaks of a mode of presence called transubstantiation, Becon speaks of a mode of presence through the power of God.  Becon’s (and Aquinas’) spiritual presence is clearly moderate realism when he refers to Christ’s presence with his people apart from the Eucharist, but Becon will not allow any form of realism in relation to the Eucharist.  The realism he presents regarding Christ’s presence with the faithful is in no way, it seems, possible in any discussion of the Eucharist.  Becon’s adherence to nominalism in his eucharistic theology and his reaction to the corruptions of transubstantiation, exclude moderate realism, as a spiritual real presence of Christ’s body and blood, in the Eucharist.

In a discussion of the words Hoc est corpus meum Becon comments that the words indicate:

“His body, I grant in mystery and figure, but not in nature and substance.  For the body of Christ was made of the substance of Mary the virgin, and not of the substance of bread.  Though Christ called the bread his body, yet doth it not therefore follow, that the bread is his natural body; but so termed for certain resemblances and likenesses between the body of Christ and the creature of bread. … Christ calleth the bread his body; not that it is his natural body indeed, not that it is his natural body indeed, but because it representeth, signifieth, declareth, preacheth, and setteth forth his body unto us …” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 282).

Becon makes a clear distinction between the nature and substance of Christ on one hand and the bread and wine on the other, which can only ever be a resemblance or likeness.  There can be, in such a nominalist conception, no instantiation of the nature in the bread and wine in any realist sense.

Despite what comes close to a realist view, Becon is careful to maintain his nominalism.  In one passage of his Catechism he says:

“For as the bread was broken of the faithful in the action of the Lord’s supper, so was Christ’s body broken on the altar of the cross.  And as the bread nourisheth, preserveth, and comforteth the body, when it is eaten, so likewise the body of Christ nourisheth, preserveth, and comforteth both the body and the soul of the faithful communicants.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 282).

Here there seems to be some kind of identity in operation, in that the bread being broken in the Eucharist is as Christ’s body being broken on the cross.  This comment must however be interpreted in the light of the general theme followed by Becon.  The breaking of the bread is merely a figure or token of the breaking of the body of Christ on the cross.  There is no realist instantiation of this breaking in the Eucharist.  The bread and the body are each seen to nourish, preserve and comfort, separately.  The bread does not nourish, preserve and comfort the soul because the body of Christ is not present in it.  The bread is merely a figure of the body of Christ.  It is the body of Christ, a separate, self-enclosed entity from the bread, which nourishes, preserves and comforts the soul as well as the body.  This is confirmed as Becon says:

“ And that the breaking of Christ’s body on the altar of the cross for our redemption might the more surely be fixed in our hearts, when we come together to eat the Lord’s supper, Christ enabled the sacramental bread with the name of his body, when notwithstanding is the figure and sign of his body.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 282).

In another work Becon also says:

“ … the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood is not the very self real and natural body and blood of Christ, but an holy sign, figure, and token of his blessed body and precious blood.  For this word ‘sacrament’ is as much to say as a sign of an holy thing.  Now that which is the sign of a thing cannot be the thing itself.  And though the Son called the bread his body, and the wine his blood, because the disciples should the better remember the breaking of his body and the shedding of his blood (as he likewise called himself a vine, a door, a rock, when notwithstanding he was neither natural vine, material door, or stony rock, but only likened unto them for certain properties which he hath with the vine, door, and rock), yet is neither the bread his natural body, nor the wine his natural blood, as divers of the ancient doctors do declare and prove, but only a figure of his body and blood.  The bread is called Christ’s body because it visibly preacheth and bringeth to our remembrance the breaking of Christ’s body.  The wine also is called Christ’s blood, because it putteth us in remembrance of the shedding of Christ’s blood.” (Becon, The Flower of Godly Prayers, ed. Ayre, 1844b: 67).

In regard to the nature of the eating and the drinking Becon argues that there are two senses – a sacramental sense and a spiritual sense.  He explains these two senses as follows:

“Christ is eaten or received in two manners or ways: that is to say, sacramentally and spiritually.  He is received or eaten sacramentally, when we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, according to the institution of Christ; which thing is done not only of the faithful but also of the unfaithful.  He is also eaten or received spiritually, when we believe in Christ, embrace him as our alone Saviour, put our whole hope, trust, and confidence for our redemption and salvation in that one and alone sacrifice, which Christ offered on the altar of the cross, having his body there broken, and his blood there shed, for the remission of our sin: again, when we earnestly consider in our minds the passion and death of Christ, with all the benefits thereof, chawing and digesting them with the stomach of the heart, be thankful for them to God the Father, and labour to the uttermost of our power to live worthy his kindness, daily increasing more and more in all godliness and honesty.  And after this manner the godly and faithful only eat and receive Christ.  Other eating or receiving of Christ there is none.” (Becon, Catechism, ed. Ayre, 1844a: 294-295).

The sacramental and the spiritual eating and drinking are seen to be separate and self-enclosed entities.  Such separated entities are indicators of a nominalist framework.  There is no indication of a realist notion of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the theology of Thomas Becon.  His theology of the Eucharist seems to be based firmly upon a nominalist framework.